The non-provision of essential commodities does not fall under the definition of 'service' within the Consumer Protection Act, making the complaint non-maintainable.

ORDER

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1992 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Hardoi in complaint case No. 916 of 1992.

2. In spite of notice being sent through SPS on 14.2.2008 and the case being displayed on the Internet, no one from either side is present. Looking to the nature of the old pendency, we propose to decide this appeal on merit.

3. Consequently, we perused the impugned judgment and order, grounds of appeal and other materials available on record.

4. The appellant criticised the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the judgment and order is an outcome of arbitrary exercise of the discretion by the learned District Forum and is an output of ignoring the written statement. In the written statement the appellant specifically stated that the wife of the complainant had taken away sugar. In the instant case, the complaint was filed against the Quotedar alleging irregularities committed by him in non-distribution of sugar and kerosine Oil as available to the Ration Card Holder. Such matter obviously, cannot be made a subject matter of a consumer dispute. The commodities like sugar and kerosine oil were to be provided by the Quotedar to the Card Holders subject to the provisions of Essential Commodity Act as well as Food Control Orders. If there was any violation regarding the terms and conditions of the licence by the Quotedar, the matter could have taken up on the administrative side with the authorities concerned. Particularly, in the instant case, the specific stand of the appellant is that the wife of the Card Holder has taken away the sugar, the written statement which was filed by him on 16.11.1992 was ignored and the judgment was passed on the same date. Even from the perusal of the judgment and order, it is found that the approach of the District Forum has been through arbitrary. Even the learned District Forum has not taken up the issue as to whether the present complaint was maintainable, whether it was a consumer dispute, whether any deficiency in service or any defects in goods. Obviously, non-providing the essential commodity cannot be deemed as 'service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and more so, in such cases neither the plea on defect in goods as defined in Section 2(1)(b) and deficiency in service as defined in Section 2(1)(g), can be raised through the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. We, therefore, find that the approach of the District Forum has been totally unwarranted and contrary of the provision of law. The complaint should have been dismissed out right which has not been done.

ORDER

Appeal is allowed. Judgment and order of the District Forum are set aside.